Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 17 Apr 1997

Business of Select Committee.

Chairman

Before we resume debate on the Electoral Bill, 1994, I wish to inform the committee that I have received a letter from the Clerk of the Dáil, in his capacity as Registrar of Political Parties, addressed to the Clerk to the Committee and dated 10 April 1997. It states:

Dear Mr. Malone,

I have read the unrevised transcripts of the Select Committee's proceedings on the Electoral Bill, 1994 Committee Stage.

Since I felt obliged to make a submission to the Select Committee concerning the registration of Political Parties if I may I would like to clarify a relatively minor point concerning the number of applications for registration made during the Committee meeting on 26th March, 1997. The number of applications in recent years amounts to 13 and not 2 as stated. I enclose a list of the applications for information.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify another related point, namely the view expressed that the burden of work involved was the main reason for the submission. The volume of work is not and never was an issue from my point of view — the purpose of the submission was to seek some form of meaningful change in a provision of the Electoral Act, 1992, which in practice has caused difficulties. While it is. of course, a matter of policy for the Select Committee and ultimately the Dáil and Seanad to decide what form a scheme of registration of Political Parties, if any, is to take, I felt it important that this point in particular should be clarified.

I thank you for the opportunity of making this point of clarification and I await the outcome of the Committee's deliberations with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Kieran Coughlan,

Clerk of the Dáil and Registrar of Political Parties.

There is an attachment to the letter which gives details of the applications. In 1992 applications were allowed from the Christian Centrist Party, Democratic Left and the Green Party. In 1993-94 applications and their status were as follows: Christian Democratic Party, not pursued; the Pro-Life Party, not pursued; Democratic Alliance, not pursued; Christian Centrist Party — a dispute arose in December 1993, an appeal was lodged on the decision of the Registrar and the name of the party was subsequently changed to the Christian Solidarity Party. In 1994 applications were allowed from the Natural Law Party and the South Kerry Independent Alliance; an application from Muintir na hÉireann was disallowed, an appeal was lodged and it was subsequently registered. In 1996 applications were allowed from the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers' Party and the National Party; there is an ongoing dispute within Muintir na hÉireann; an application from The Party is being processed.

Mr. Dempsey

Is Ming the Merciless being put? It proves my point on registration perfectly.

Electoral Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 130:

In page 23, subsection (1)(a), line 1, after "party" to insert "pursuant to section 29(1)(b) or 30(1)(b)".

—(Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Ms McManus).

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 131, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 158 and 164 are being taken with amendment No. 130. The Minister wishes to respond at this stage to points raised at the last meeting.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

It was asked if the expenditure limits envisaged would apply to the forthcoming election. I am at some disadvantage in responding to that because I do not know the date of the next election — I say that with hand on heart.

Chairman

The Minister is not as well informed as the Minister of State, Deputy Burton.

Mr. Howlin

Having spoken to her I do not think she is as well informed as her slip of the tongue on radio yesterday may have indicated. She was talking in months rather than weeks. I can understand her being frustrated with Deputy Ray Burke — he would addle anybody. If the election is in the autumn we will have time to have this Bill enacted and the regulations drawn up. If it is earlier we will have to be pragmatic about it. The expenditure limits will not be retrospective, that is to say, money spent on the election in advance of this measure will not be subject to it.

It was asked whether the expenditure limits would be increased. The figures are not written in stone. The figures arrived at are reasonable. I am aware the Opposition amendments seek to increase considerably the amounts and if there was a strong view that other issues, such as voluntary workers' expenditure, require some flexibility, I would willingly reconsider the figures for the Report Stage having consulted the Government.

With regard to the 50 per cent limit for party expenditure and whether a maximum 50-50 divide could be made between the party nationally and the local candidate, I understand Deputy Dempsey indicated that the limit would cause problems for the main Opposition party. I do not have a closed mind on the issue and I will listen to arguments on it.

It was also asked if the expenditure could be categorised into party expenditure nationally, local party expenditure, local branch expenditure and the candidate's expenditure. It is difficult to get this arrangement right and I wanted to make it as simple as possible. Having those levels of categories would make it more complicated to implement and I am not minded to do that. A common, straightforward threshold with the agent for the candidate being responsible to ensure that all expenditure is sanctioned is the best way to proceed rather than have different subheads. It is similar to trying to find funding for projects in the Department of the Environment where there exists a variety of fund sources, be it EU or Exchequer funds. It is easier to have one source of funding and would make it simpler to implement in practice. I do not accept the proposition.

On the position of national agent or election agent, either may exceed the agreed split up of expenditure. A valid point is made in terms of the clarity required on this. I have no difficulty with a formal, written divide being agreed between the candidate and the party nationally. Once that is done, it could be lodged with the Public Offices Commission. Whoever exceeds it would be held responsible. If the local candidate says he or she will limit himself or herself to "X" sum and the balance is attributed to head office, as long as he or she keeps within the threshold agreed——

Chairman

In writing?

Mr. Howlin

Yes.

Chairman

Will that be provided for in the Bill?

Mr. Howlin

Yes, I am suggesting we make an amendment to provide for that.

Mr. Dempsey

The Minister's final comments may go some way towards what Deputy Lenihan mentioned about the division between local organisation and the candidate.

In a party where there is more than one candidate, during the course of an election campaign all candidates go a little mad. When there are three candidates in one party in one constituency, they go madder. As a larger party, — and this applies to the Chairman's party also — Fianna Fáil had a difficulty with this. If the Bill is left as it is and there is an election, a verbal agreement may be made in good faith between the party secretary or the national agent and the candidate, but halfway through the election one candidate may perceive that another candidate is receiving an advantage or he or she is not doing as well as he or she thought. He or she can suddenly say "to heck with this", decide not to stick to their £9,000 and can ring party headquarters to say he or she is taking the full £18,000 for the campaign.

This would put the national agent in a difficult position. Perhaps he would not even receive the courtesy of a telephone call and would not know until after the election. I can see no provision in the Bill which allows for the culprit to be punished, rather than the poor election agent at national headquarters level who had done his or her best. What the Minister has said may address this.

Deputy Lenihan also queried whether, within this 50/50 divide, local constituency expenses would be deemed to be national or the candidate's. A difficulty could arise where the candidate could tell the national organisation that he intended to spend all the money or the local organisation could tell the candidate it was spending the money. I am not sure this is being addressed by the Minister's proposals.

The Minister referred to expenditure limits. I put the raising of those limits forward because with a little more leeway it might be easier to come to an agreement. Probably very few people will reach the limits set by the Minister but some more space could be allowed. I do not think we are proposing a huge increase.

In my amendments, particularly amendment No. 145, I am endeavouring to legislate for the party headquarters being able to spend 50 per cent per candidate. Party headquarters could decide if they needed to vary this. This puts the candidate at a slight disadvantage but it is the only way this could be enforceable. If the party headquarters do not have the controlling say, we could encounter serious difficulties. The Minister has proposed a written agreement enforceable in law which makes it clear that the candidate will be responsible for overspending. This will go a long way towards resolving this but not the issue of constituency expenses.

Chairman

The provision for limits in constituencies, reimbursement etc., is a quagmire and I doubt whether it is workable. There is expenditure at different levels — national, constituency and branch levels — and there is individual expenditure by candidates. There is even expenditure by friends of candidates, such as sponsoring, over which the candidate has no control.

A candidate and party might make every effort to observe the law and stay within the rules but it is hard, for example, to control the expenditure of a local branch. If I arrive at a branch meeting in my constituency the financial report is usually omitted because the members do not want me to know what they have. They prefer a candidate to seek money from headquarters or from some other source. The candidate usually does not know about finance at branch level because, in many cases, branch funds are a closely guarded secret. Treasurers can be as effective as Margaret Thatcher in protecting the treasury of the branch.

In rural constituencies there can be up to 80 branches or cumainn and if they are spending £200 each that is a total of £14,000, a substantial sum. How is this to be apportioned or controlled? It is an extraordinarily issue. It would be better to forget about limits on constituency spending and reimbursement. The section is so complicated it is begging to be transgressed and there will be plenty of experts who will know how to get around it. It will be a charade.

Mr. Howlin

We have debated these core principles at length. Several other developed democracies have expenditure thresholds for elections which are workable. If one accepts the principle that there should be a ceiling on allowable expenses for an election, we must work out a mechanism to do that. The Government strongly believes the principle should be enshrined in law.

Mr. Dempsey

The Minister mentioned other democracies, but they have either single seat constituencies or list systems. That is the problem.

Mr. Howlin

A multi-seat constituency system makes it more difficult but having multiple branches does not make a difference as to whether there are one or ten candidates for a party.

Mr. Dempsey

It does.

Mr. Howlin

The principle is that there must be a ceiling on expenditure. If we abandon that principle we are saying anybody can expend any amount of money. The Progressive Democrats are in favour of the latter. They say it is one's own money and one can spend as much as one wishes. However, we should not get involved in the auction style politics which have developed elsewhere.

One of the core principles of the Bill is that there should be a ceiling on expenditure. The mechanism for doing that is not as convoluted or difficult as the Chairman said. There are two possible expenditures. The national party will have a pool of money to fight an election campaign and that pool will be put together by taking a portion of the allowance for each candidate for that party. That will build an allowable expense. Individual candidates have their own allowance. Each candidate will have an agent and no money can be expended for that candidate without the agent's approval. It will not be simple, but it is reasonable that the agent should be able to tell branches they may not expend money without his or her authorisation. One can keep track of the money on that basis.

It is a system we can learn and understand. In five or six years' time we will see that it can work. If I were before the Committee to explain the process of proportional representation, members would claim it was unworkable, but it works very well. If I were before the Committee to propose the concept of income tax it would also be regarded as unworkable. However, these systems can be put in place and applied. The expenditure proposal is reasonably simple although it sounds difficult. If one agent is responsible for expenditure and nobody is allowed to expend money without his or her authorisation, there is no reason why it cannot work.

Mr. Dempsey

It sounds fine in theory. Garret FitzGerald often used the phrase: "It sounds fine in theory, but will it work in practice?" This proposal does not appear to do either. Nobody, except perhaps members of the Progressive Democrats, has difficulty with the principle of expenditure limits and the limits in the Bill are not unworkable. I am not trying to be awkward but my perspective is slightly different from the Minister's. I, like the Chairman, am a member of a large party. There are 88 branches of my party in the Meath constituency——

Mr. Howlin

All politics are local.

Mr. Dempsey

Agreed. There are also seven comhairle ceanntair and one comhairle Dáil ceanntar.

Mr. Howlin

Have they all got money?

Mr. Dempsey

As the Chairman explained, I would not know. My main fear was that this measure would be foisted on us for the next general election and, as a result, my party would be in breach of the law. It could not comply with it.

Mr. Howlin

I will be practical about it.

Mr. Dempsey

I accept that. Since there are three candidates in my constituency there would be three agents who would have to talk to each other, which would be a change in multi-seat constituencies. I am outlining the practical difficulties. The more prescribed the section is, the better it will work. If we could arrive at a formula which would make a distinction among national organisation, local branches and candidate, even if local branches and candidate were linked, it would be helpful.

Mr. Howlin

There will be a clear division between national and local. A number of sections will be amended to ensure there is a written agreement to provide for a 50 per cent division in the allowance. That will be binding. If people remain within the agreement they will have nothing to fear. It will also meet the point raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Dempsey

Will the Minister consider amendments Nos. 145 and 146?

Mr. Howlin

The limits are not unreasonable. The Deputy has included limits for European elections.

Mr. Dempsey

I am focusing on the Dáil elections.

Mr. Howlin

I must discuss it with colleagues but I will see if we can revisit it on Report Stage. I do not have a closed mind on the matter, if it would meet the requirements of the Deputy's position.

Mr. Dempsey

It would ease matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 131:

In page 23, subsection (1)(b), line 4 after "at the election" to insert "(other than election expenses deemed under section 29(1)(b)(ii) or 30(1)(b)(ii) to be election expenses incurred by that candidate)".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.